Raheem
Well-Known Member
But in order to get it, you need to already get it.
Identity Politics: the impasse, the debate, the thread.
- Thread starter danny la rouge
- Start date
Well, I've read at least some of the theorists that the authors are representing and the summaries that the authors provide seem, at least in those instances, perfectly reasonable.
The links between some of the ideas that the theorists have advanced and the social justice movements is reasonably clear as well - particularly when activists rely on very abstract concepts to try and make very tangible points that everyone is supposed to just get on board with, such as the bonkers idea that taking linguistic offence is the same as experiencing the delivery of actual violence.
With all the rest you're spiralling off into an ad hominem attack of little substance.
Last edited:
andysays
Love and solidarity
Whatever the merits or otherwise of this book, can I request that when recommending anything in future, you (people in general) don't link to Amazon but instead link to the publisher or whatever.
As you may be aware, there is currently a campaign challenging Amazon's union-busting practices, as well as long standing concerns about their tax avoidance. If people still want to use them, that's up to them, but it would be good if Urban isn't used to actively encourage this.
Action on Amazon
I'm going to check if there is already a thread devoted to this, and if not I'll start one...
(Good to see you back posting again, BTW Diamond )
andysays
Love and solidarity
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
Genuine question here. Can you show me where Lindsay claims that "a cabal of Jews was trying to bring down Western civilisation"?
Colin Hunt
Active Member
OK there's a few things to unpack here. Firstly, if someone's criticising a book that you've recommended for making incorrect generalisations, saying 'it seems OK to me' isn't a brilliant defense. With that in mind I'll go through my first post and add some substance.
Step 1: Make some generalisations and misrepresentations about a diverse group of theorists. Here's a quote about postmodernism from the book.
“[A] new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind.” Which of course ignores the fact that postmodernism is not hostile to reason, and that most postmodernist thinkers spent a lot of time disagreeing with each other, and responding to criticism of their work by non-postmodern thinkers.
Then there's the fact that they boil the entirety of Foucault's thought down into 2 points: radical skepticism about whether objective knowledge is possible and a belief that structures in society decide what is true. That's not what Foucault says. Firstly, he wasn't interested in finding out what was true, but rather in what we think is true causes us to act like, so they've got it backwards. And secondly Foucault wrote about power being relational and not zero-sum. So again they've got him backwards (perhaps deliberately in an attempt to link him to contemporary scholars).
So they've inappropriately lumped together a bunch of distinct theorists with different views and the main intellectual thrust of the book is based on a misreading of Foucault. I wouldn't call either of those things "perfectly reasonable" but you've already mentioned how the book spoke to your lived experience so perhaps you looked at these missteps with a less critical eye than I did.
Step 2: Make a tortured link from those generalisations to contemporary social justice movements. The book traces postmodernism through an 'applied postmodernism' phase and then into contemporary 'reified postmodernism'. The problem is that most of the contemporary thinkers are not postmodernists at all. In fact, some of them sit within the liberal tradition that the authors claim to be defending. Then there's the fact that quite a lot of the theorists that they claim to be quoting are actually misquoted, quoted out of context, or quoted to mean a completely different thing to what they're actually saying. So the authors are making up quotes and attributing them to people that never said them, in order to justify the link between (their misreading of) Foucault and (their caricature of) modern theorists.
As an aside, I'm not sure that there's much of a link between activists and social theorists. Postmodernism is primarily a tool of literary analysis, not a way of mobilising people onto the streets in protest movements.
Step 3: Become a darling of the right-wing media. This is just a description of what happened to Lindsay after the book was published. While theorists either vehemently disagreed with it, ignored it, or mocked it, right-wing media outlets gave it gushing coverage.
OK, now let's talk about me "spiralling off into an ad hominem attack of little substance".
Step 4: Partner with a Christian nationalist to set up a fake liberal website and spend most of your time laundering right-wing talking points (A cabal of Jews was trying to bring down Western civilisation from the inside and that's why the far-right can recruit more anti-semites; queer theory is in bed with radical Islamism; climate justice is communism; etc). Is it an ad hominem attack to point out who is funding someone's research? Because New Discourses, the website that Lindsay writes for, is funded by Michael O'Fallon, who also runs a website called Sovereign Nations which aims (I'm not going to link to it) to be "a prolegomenon to the formation of a new, and not just sentimental, conservative and Constitutional Republic" and is heavily involved in right-wing religious nationalism. O'Fallon and Lindsay have also shared numerous other platforms where they promote absurd theories together. So, to reiterate, is it ad hominem for me to point out that this team of so-called liberal rationalists are either partnered with or employed by (possibly both) the religious right? Is it ad hominem to say that they're laundering right-wing talking points when that is what they're actually doing? Or is it an honest description of their activities?
So what about the substance? Well on a previous page of this thread somebody linked to some of Lindsay's tweets, where he says that woke Jews cause anti-semitism (link) and that "the Frankfurt School really did want to end Western Civilization and is almost wholly comprised of Jews. This allows anti-Semites to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited" (link). So victim-blaming and some classic cultural Marxism conspiracy stuff. In other words, laundering far-right nonsense.
In the same twitter thread he states that "another Critical Theory, Queer Theory, partners with radical Islamists (not famous for their tolerance of gays) against Israel" (link). And I'm not going to link to it but if you search for 'Michael O'Fallon James Lindsay climate' it'll bring up a youtube video where they make the link between climate justice and communism.
That book isn't really serious scholarship, but then it's not supposed to be. There's two arms to this point. The first is that this book isn't serious scholarship. It's not. Between the massive simplification of decades of theory written by people with many differing viewpoints, the misreading of Foucault, and the misquoting of modern scholars, I don't think it's a stretch to say that the scholarship isn't serious. There are also technical issues with the scholarship, including incorrectly citing works, which don't fill me with confidence about the depth of their critical engagement with the material.
As for the what the work actually is, if it's not serious scholarship, that's a bit more of a reach. However, to me there are two reasons for supposing that this is a work of culture war positioning rather than serious scholarship. The first reason is Lindsay's connections to reactionary right-wing figures such as Michael O'Fallon and Christopher Rufo.
The second reason is that the very accusations that the authors level (wrongly) at reified postmodernism can be leveled at their work. For example, they claim that postmodernism is “[A] new religion, a tradition of faith that is actively hostile to reason, falsification, disconfirmation, and disagreement of any kind” while only 1 of the theorists that they cite even comes close to making that claim. According to their view, reified postmodernists accept no disagreement, because your disagreement with them is representative of your power and your power means that your disagreement is invalid. I think Robin DiAngelo would probably agree with that statement, but none of the other cited theorists would.
But what happens if you disagree with Lindsay et al.? Then you become part of the evil woke that's trying to silence them. Which appears to me to be exactly the argument that they reject when it comes from reified postmodernists. As such, to me the book reads more as a sketch of right-wing victimhood and projection and a new frontier in the culture wars than a serious piece of scholarship.
I'm always suspicious of so-called 'genuine questions' but the source for that statement is here. "[T]he Frankfurt School really did want to end Western Civilization and is almost wholly comprised of Jews. This allows anti-Semites to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited". It's been briefly discussed on a previous page of this thread too.
Thank you! Brilliant post, much appreciated.
ItWillNeverWork
Messy Crimbobs, fellow humans.
Forget I asked then
Dom Traynor
Tino Pai
Do you think you can make that claim stick?
Shechemite
Be the sun and all will see you
Doesn’t pass the sniff test
splonkydoo
Well-Known Member
Have read in-depth reports about it in the Huffington Post.
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
With the help of Mac Giolla Gorilla adhesive . . .
There's an awful lot to get through here so will do my best.
Your first sentence is more accurately applied as a criticism to yourself, I would argue. Your point, as far as I understand it, seems to be a call for evidence to support a view. What is notable is that your views, as originally advanced in your points 1-5 post, were similarly unsupported. And I'm afraid that is inconsistent and hypocritical.
The next point to make is that the quotation that you provide is slightly besides the point. The quote is not a description of a theorist, nor is it an attempt to summarise a theorist's work. It is a description, at the most general level, of a school of thought.
Following on from that, the authors do rely very heavily on what they term (i) the postmodern knowledge principle and (ii) the postmodern political principle. Neither of these are derived specifically from a narrow focus on Foucault's work. While they do discuss Foucault, they actually spend much more time on Butler, Crenshaw, Spivak etc - the second and third generation. In fact, it is difficult to trace their postmodern political principle into an analysis of Foucault at all...
I think there are 2 points to make here. The first is that you will have a hard time persuading anyone that the second and third generation theorists such as Butler, Crenshaw, Spivak etc are not postmodern theorists. I'm afraid that argument simply fails for being prima facie wrong and illogical. Or, even if you are right and we apply a different label, they are still doing fundamentally the same things in the same tradition.
The second point to make links in to the inconsistency, hypocrisy stuff at the top of your post re: evidencing one's case. You make some pretty extraordinary claims about authors being misquoted or even having stuff completely invented and false attributed to them. These are profoundly serious claims.
Yet, you provide no evidence in support.
I note that you focus in on James Lindsay with a certain laser-like intensity. However, the book has two authors, does it not? Do you have anything to say about Helen Pluckrose?
And, beyond that, your problem seems to be that...it got good reviews from right-wing people
Do you write off everything that right-wing people like as prohibitively contaminated? If so, do you think that is a reasonable, productive position to take?
And now we're in to the meat of what you really, really want to talk about and, frankly, it has nothing to do with the book or its contents whatsoever. Have you read the New Discourses website? I hadn't until you brought it to my attention, for which many thanks as I think it has a huge amount of really interesting material on it. You may not agree with it but this is just the kind of stuff that would never be published in the mainstream media today and that's a pretty good reason to read it. Link here:
More widely, I really think you have got the wrong end of the stick on those Lindsay tweets. They really do not say what you say they do. Not even slightly. I mean the first tweet that you link to - literally the very next tweet in that thread is the author rejecting your characterisation. Have you read it? If so, why are you going in for such a serious misrepresentation? Your characterisation is almost wholly in error. That's really, really poor, extremely manipulative behaviour in my book.
This can be dealt with fairly efficiently. No it is not a book of "serious scholarship", by which I assume you mean that it is not a peer-reviewed academic work. It is a work of popular theory/philosophy. That does not mean that it is somehow inferior or not worthwhile, far from it, in fact.
The main argument though seems to a battlelines one.
"You're either with us or against us."
Never listen to a single person who tells you that. It is always a lie to try and get you to do something to their advantage, usually without any benefits accruing to you.
Your first sentence is more accurately applied as a criticism to yourself, I would argue. Your point, as far as I understand it, seems to be a call for evidence to support a view. What is notable is that your views, as originally advanced in your points 1-5 post, were similarly unsupported. And I'm afraid that is inconsistent and hypocritical.
The next point to make is that the quotation that you provide is slightly besides the point. The quote is not a description of a theorist, nor is it an attempt to summarise a theorist's work. It is a description, at the most general level, of a school of thought.
Following on from that, the authors do rely very heavily on what they term (i) the postmodern knowledge principle and (ii) the postmodern political principle. Neither of these are derived specifically from a narrow focus on Foucault's work. While they do discuss Foucault, they actually spend much more time on Butler, Crenshaw, Spivak etc - the second and third generation. In fact, it is difficult to trace their postmodern political principle into an analysis of Foucault at all...
I think there are 2 points to make here. The first is that you will have a hard time persuading anyone that the second and third generation theorists such as Butler, Crenshaw, Spivak etc are not postmodern theorists. I'm afraid that argument simply fails for being prima facie wrong and illogical. Or, even if you are right and we apply a different label, they are still doing fundamentally the same things in the same tradition.
The second point to make links in to the inconsistency, hypocrisy stuff at the top of your post re: evidencing one's case. You make some pretty extraordinary claims about authors being misquoted or even having stuff completely invented and false attributed to them. These are profoundly serious claims.
Yet, you provide no evidence in support.
I note that you focus in on James Lindsay with a certain laser-like intensity. However, the book has two authors, does it not? Do you have anything to say about Helen Pluckrose?
And, beyond that, your problem seems to be that...it got good reviews from right-wing people
Do you write off everything that right-wing people like as prohibitively contaminated? If so, do you think that is a reasonable, productive position to take?
And now we're in to the meat of what you really, really want to talk about and, frankly, it has nothing to do with the book or its contents whatsoever. Have you read the New Discourses website? I hadn't until you brought it to my attention, for which many thanks as I think it has a huge amount of really interesting material on it. You may not agree with it but this is just the kind of stuff that would never be published in the mainstream media today and that's a pretty good reason to read it. Link here:
More widely, I really think you have got the wrong end of the stick on those Lindsay tweets. They really do not say what you say they do. Not even slightly. I mean the first tweet that you link to - literally the very next tweet in that thread is the author rejecting your characterisation. Have you read it? If so, why are you going in for such a serious misrepresentation? Your characterisation is almost wholly in error. That's really, really poor, extremely manipulative behaviour in my book.
This can be dealt with fairly efficiently. No it is not a book of "serious scholarship", by which I assume you mean that it is not a peer-reviewed academic work. It is a work of popular theory/philosophy. That does not mean that it is somehow inferior or not worthwhile, far from it, in fact.
- misreading of Foucault = never demonstrated by you
- misquoting of modern scholars = never demonstrated by you
- "technical issues with the scholarship" = no idea what this supercilious and rather arrogant reference is about
- incorrectly citing works = never demonstrated by you
- "depth of critical engagement with the material" = this literally does not mean anything at all
The main argument though seems to a battlelines one.
"You're either with us or against us."
Never listen to a single person who tells you that. It is always a lie to try and get you to do something to their advantage, usually without any benefits accruing to you.
Last edited:
What does come out of their book though, which is really worth flagging up is the idea that these critical theorists are becoming more radical and fundamentalist in each successive generation.
For instance, the first generation of "classic" postmodernists had almost no interest in any kind of practical application of their theories (with perhaps the very unique exception of De Certeau - still my favourite) and would probably view where we have got to with the advance of critical theory into the institutions with mounting horror.
It was the second and third generation, largely American and not that bright, who "applied" it and then added in some epistemic-logic traps that have consigned it all to an escalating cycle of fundamentalism. They are much the same traps as have been sprung in religious fundamentalisms - particularly the idea that if you offer any criticism of the diagnosis, you become the disease and must be attacked.
For instance, the first generation of "classic" postmodernists had almost no interest in any kind of practical application of their theories (with perhaps the very unique exception of De Certeau - still my favourite) and would probably view where we have got to with the advance of critical theory into the institutions with mounting horror.
It was the second and third generation, largely American and not that bright, who "applied" it and then added in some epistemic-logic traps that have consigned it all to an escalating cycle of fundamentalism. They are much the same traps as have been sprung in religious fundamentalisms - particularly the idea that if you offer any criticism of the diagnosis, you become the disease and must be attacked.
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
Lol. First of all, what's the neutral, mutually agreed-upon and widespread, definition of postmodern theorist you're using here? Do any of those people ever say they're postmodern theorists? Or if not, what is it about them that makes them postmodern theorists, possibly without their knowledge?
wait till you find out about this site called the canary, it is going to blow your mind.
Let's go over this a bit - when you say that, are we talking about the "woke Jews causing antisemitism" thing here? Because if so, let's look at what he says:
James Lindsay is rejecting the idea that antisemitism is caused by Jews being Jewish, in favour of his preferred explanation, which is that [at least some] antisemitism is caused by Jews being woke. Replace "WOKE" with "Bolshevik" and you'd had some absolutely bogstandard Churchill/Ford-esque 1930s antisemitism going there. Do you think I'm also misreading it? What do you think the accurate reading would be? Similarly, in the other thread linked to, about the Jewish conspiracy to destroy Western civilisation, he writes
If you can't see where his argument is going here, then frankly that's on your reading comprehension, not anyone else.
You have the wrong end of the stick. The poster said that individual theorists were being misrepresented in a particular book but then cited a quote from that book that failed to reference any theorists at all. That was my point.
Yes, I do think you are misreading the Lindsay tweet thread. We can see that because to make your point you have had to change one of the words and then attack that formulation instead.
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
Anyway, this article looks worthwhile:
www.newyorker.com
If it's paywalled for people, this version should be readable:
outline.com
How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory
To Christopher Rufo, a term for a school of legal scholarship looked like the perfect weapon.
If it's paywalled for people, this version should be readable:
Outline.com
outline.com
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
What do you think the correct reading is?
Just to remind you, here's how Colin Hunt originally characterised it:
We've seen what Lindsay said:
And you said that:
I think that Lindsay is saying [some] antisemitism, in his words "Extra right-wing anti-Semitism" is caused by "Woke Jews", and if Jews were less woke then that particular antisemitism would not be arising. If you think that's a serious misrepresentation, and that's not what he's saying, then what is he saying?
His point is both a little complex and quite straightforward.
1. Wokeness contains anti-semitism intrinsically as a matter of woke theory (this in many ways is the most controversial part) - this is likely to be a reference to the treatment of Israel and Palestine by those on the left
2. The right is inherently anti-semitic as well and that is being stimulated right now thanks to the culture wars.
3. Part of those culture wars is Jewish people, along with other groups, adopting a woke outlook.
Pull that together and you have a lot of stimulus to anti-semitism. Wokeness is part of that picture.
You could summarise it all by saying that no-one likes Jews and now even Jews are getting in on the act thanks to wokeness.
JimW
支那暗杀团
Mate, Colin Hunt has utterly taken the book to pieces in that post so you might as well just throw your hands up. Any further argument means you're either as thick or bad faith as the authors appear to be.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. To anyone else, I would say read the posts.
Thanks, that was an interesting read.Anyway, this article looks worthwhile:
How a Conservative Activist Invented the Conflict Over Critical Race Theory
To Christopher Rufo, a term for a school of legal scholarship looked like the perfect weapon.
If it's paywalled for people, this version should be readable:
Outline.com
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
This is such laughable crap you even have to make a bit up for it to make any sense
Maybe it is.
That's not really my point - my point is that it is not:
It is literally nowhere near that zone of Bolshevik Jewish conspiracy. But that is what Colin Hunt would have you believe...
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Stop shifting them goalposts. He writes crap, that’s all that really matters.
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
That's not the point Lindsay makes in that particular series of tweets, no. It is, however, the point Lindsay makes in this particular tweet/series of tweets:
When Hunt said "A cabal of Jews was trying to bring down Western civilisation from the inside and that's why the far-right can recruit more anti-semites", we can all see that it was a description of that particular series of Lindsay posts (and an accurate one at that).
No, no, no. It really is not!
He is not saying that there is a cabal of Jews conspiring against society! If he is, show me where he does?
This is so so obvious. Why can you not see that!?
Colin Hunt
Active Member
OK here's my response to your reply.
You then agree with this in paragraph 2 when you say that they were describing "at the most general level" a school of thought. That's exactly what I said in my earlier post when I said "Make some generalisations and misrepresentations about a diverse group of theorists". My contention was that it is impossible to make generalisations about such a diverse school of thought. You then asked for substance and I provided an instance where the authors made such a generalisation. You're now agreeing that the quote I provided was a generalisation.
In paragraph 3 you mention that neither of those principles are derived from a narrow focus on Foucault's work. So why do the definitions of each term and their history make specific reference to Foucault almost before any other scholar? And if Foucault is discussed less than those other scholars, why does his name appear in the text more than all 3 of the names you mention put together?
As for people being misquoted, if you can sit through an hour-long podcast which details all the misquotations and poor scholarship in just one chapter of the book, you can listen here. It'll provide you with much of the evidence that you seek. Bear in mind that this podcast only really covers chapter 8 of the book, so there's a lot more poor scholarship under the surface.
I never had a problem with the book getting good reviews from right-wing media figures. As I said in my earlier post, "this is just a description of what happened to Lindsay after the book was published". No more, no less. So there's really no point in me engaging with the rest of this part of your post.
If you like the ramblings on New Discourses you should check out all the stuff Lindsay has done with Michael O'Fallon. It has all the great points of view of New Discourses without needing to pretend to be anything other than a Christian nationalist blog.
If you want evidence for all of the points provided, I'll refer you back to the hour-long podcast dealing with all the holes in chapter 8 of the book alone (link).
My position is not "you're either with us or against us", just that you recommended a shit book written by a pair of charlatans with dodgy connections to the religious right. Despite all the words you've typed in this reply, my mind hasn't changed.
You're more than welcome to listen to that podcast, or read some of the more critical reviews of the book that are easily found online, if you want some more evidence to support my positions. But please don't respond to me unless you're going to talk about what James Lindsay means when he says ""the Frankfurt School really did want to end Western Civilization and is almost wholly comprised of Jews. This allows anti-Semites to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited", or "another Critical Theory, Queer Theory, partners with radical Islamists (not famous for their tolerance of gays) against Israel", or that climate justice contains communism. I'd rather not waste my time typing up long replies to have most of my words ignored.
You could argue that my first sentence is more accurately applied as a criticism of myself. But you'd be wrong. I was describing the work of Lindsay and Pluckrose, which reduces the work of a diverse body of scholars working across several fields into a few principles (which are mostly based on incorrect readings of the material).
You then agree with this in paragraph 2 when you say that they were describing "at the most general level" a school of thought. That's exactly what I said in my earlier post when I said "Make some generalisations and misrepresentations about a diverse group of theorists". My contention was that it is impossible to make generalisations about such a diverse school of thought. You then asked for substance and I provided an instance where the authors made such a generalisation. You're now agreeing that the quote I provided was a generalisation.
In paragraph 3 you mention that neither of those principles are derived from a narrow focus on Foucault's work. So why do the definitions of each term and their history make specific reference to Foucault almost before any other scholar? And if Foucault is discussed less than those other scholars, why does his name appear in the text more than all 3 of the names you mention put together?
The book cites more than just those 3 theorists though, including those who fall squarely within the liberal tradition. As I said in my earlier post, to lump them all under a postmodernist banner is intellectually lazy and does their argument no favours.
As for people being misquoted, if you can sit through an hour-long podcast which details all the misquotations and poor scholarship in just one chapter of the book, you can listen here. It'll provide you with much of the evidence that you seek. Bear in mind that this podcast only really covers chapter 8 of the book, so there's a lot more poor scholarship under the surface.
Helen Pluckrose is clearly more moderate in her views than James Lindsay, which you can tell by the fact that the book is far less unhinged than his tweets. Apart from that, what do you want me to say about her? That she also shares a platform with the religious right? That she chose to cowrite a book with a conspiracy-peddler? Are you happy now that I've broadened my focus?
I never had a problem with the book getting good reviews from right-wing media figures. As I said in my earlier post, "this is just a description of what happened to Lindsay after the book was published". No more, no less. So there's really no point in me engaging with the rest of this part of your post.
The people behind the book, who is funding them, and other things that they have written is very relevant to the book and its contents.
If you like the ramblings on New Discourses you should check out all the stuff Lindsay has done with Michael O'Fallon. It has all the great points of view of New Discourses without needing to pretend to be anything other than a Christian nationalist blog.
So you asked for substance, and I provided it. You then only chose to talk about one of the 4 pieces of substance that I provided. One that I hadn't even mentioned in my original post and was just including for completeness. Then, after selectively quoting me and ignoring most of the substance of this part of my earlier post you have the nerve to say that I'm being manipulative. Deal with the other right-wing conspiracy laundering stuff too please, rather than dancing around the edges by focusing on the least serious example provided.
I'm glad you agree that it's not a book of serious scholarship. My characterisation of the work as not serious has nothing to do with it not being peer-reviewd. It has everything to do with "the massive simplification of decades of theory written by people with many differing viewpoints, the misreading of Foucault, and the misquoting of modern scholars". This is referenced in my earlier post, so your attempt to paint me as some sort of academic gatekeeper is bizarre and unhelpful.
If you want evidence for all of the points provided, I'll refer you back to the hour-long podcast dealing with all the holes in chapter 8 of the book alone (link).
Your first sentence is pretty snide, and sticks in the craw a bit because I waded through this post expecting proper disagreement and found most of the evidence that I had provided was either not responded to, or was deliberately misunderstood.
My position is not "you're either with us or against us", just that you recommended a shit book written by a pair of charlatans with dodgy connections to the religious right. Despite all the words you've typed in this reply, my mind hasn't changed.
You're more than welcome to listen to that podcast, or read some of the more critical reviews of the book that are easily found online, if you want some more evidence to support my positions. But please don't respond to me unless you're going to talk about what James Lindsay means when he says ""the Frankfurt School really did want to end Western Civilization and is almost wholly comprised of Jews. This allows anti-Semites to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited", or "another Critical Theory, Queer Theory, partners with radical Islamists (not famous for their tolerance of gays) against Israel", or that climate justice contains communism. I'd rather not waste my time typing up long replies to have most of my words ignored.
Last edited:
hitmouse
music obfuscation technology
He is saying that anti-Semites are able to recruit new anti-Semites who wouldn't have otherwise been recruited because of the fact that the Frankfurt School really did want to end Western Civilization and was almost wholly comprised of Jews. That's literally almost a word for word quote, just slightly moved around and with the tenses sorted out a bit. You can argue whether or not it's accurate to call the Frankfurt School a cabal, or whether "wanting to end Western Civilization" is the same thing as "conspiring against society", but really you're grasping at straws there.
Similar threads
